D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Maxperson]

My party freaked out last session when they found a gilded chariot in a smallish treasure room. They couldn't fathom how it got in there. They never seemed to consider that it had been put together inside the room instead of driven in.

Or heck, even brought in by magic.

 

[clearstream]

How do you square that with this passage?

A skill represents a specific aspect of an ability score, and an individual's proficiency in a skill demonstrates a focus on that aspect. (…) Sometimes, the DM might ask for an ability check using a specific skill--for example, “Make a Wisdom (Perception) check.” At other times, a player might ask the DM if proficiency in a particular skill applies to a check. In either case, proficiency in a skill means an individual can add his or her proficiency bonus to ability checks that involve that skill. Without proficiency in the skill, the individual makes a normal ability check.

So the obvious thing to say about that is to notice all the specificity that is associated with skills. As @Maxperson touched on a few posts up-thread, and as @Bill Zebub put at issue, it's possible that RAW offers no means to tell which parts of RAW are more specific. So I am taking the following view

1. For something to be considered under PHB 7, it need only be one of the things listed under PHB 7.
2. If it is one of the things listed under PHB 7, exceptions are only formed where there is actual conflict.
3. A mark of a general rule, is that it applies generally - to multiple aspects of the game. The more aspects it applies to, the more general it is. The clue is in the name. The least requirement for something specific is that it doesn't apply to everything.

How does that cash out?

1. The PHB 185 RAW is an element of the game, so it must be considered under PHB 7.
2. If I believe 185 conflicts with the social skills, then I am saying that exceptions can be formed in its relation.
3. "Roleplaying is a part of every aspect of the game..." it's hard to see what could be more general than that. PHB 185 is a general rule. Agreed?

You seem to want the test for skills to be about how they work, but that is not what PHB 7 asks for. It asks only whether skills are a game element? That is something you have already conceded. As game elements, they can create an exception to how the rest of the game works. So even if the game works the way you say it does, skills as game elements can ignore that where it conflicts with the RAW specific to them. And the RAW specific to them is not all of the text relating to ability checks, it is only their text.

I urge you to check again the PHB 7 text - maybe you will notice something there that I have not.

No. They are a game element which grants proficiency in a subset of ability checks. I have told you this many, many times now.

What do you think PHB 7 asks for, more than that they are simply a game element?

Then what do you call this, if not RAW support for a check not being called for when the outcome is certain?

The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results.

That might matter if the actual RAW - the specific text in the skills - did not authorize the DM to call for a check. Seeing as it does, there is a conflict that must be decided in favour of the more specific. PHB 7 is on a similar power level to Rule 0. It affords exceptions to the way the game otherwise works. If I did not see those words in the RAW - in the social skills - saying that a DM can call for a check, then I would likely come down on this in a different place. There would then be no specific contained in the skill game elements that conflicted with the PHB 185 general.

 

[Faolyn]

Or heck, even brought in by magic.

I jokingly told them that they built the dungeon around the chariot. They have decided to keep the chariot now.

Due to Ravenloft weirdness, they exited the dungeon high up on a frozen mountain. I think they'll rebel if it ends up breaking on the way down.

 

[clearstream]

Sure, it's general, but it's less general than a rule about the entirety of ability checks. One rule deals with every ability check and the other with a very limited subset of ability checks. That makes it more specific.

If I were referring to the entirety of ability checks, then that would require further analysis! I'm kind of divided on what ends up entailed. Like - consider this - a longer password is informationally more specific than a shorter one (fewer states map to it.) So unless we were erasing the skills texts, absorbing them into the ability checks super-text produces an even more specific whole, that can create exceptions where its specifics conflict with even more general rules.

 

[Lanefan]

My party freaked out last session when they found a gilded chariot in a smallish treasure room. They couldn't fathom how it got in there. They never seemed to consider that it had been put together inside the room instead of driven in.

We're in a dungeon right now where the DM used a piece of artwork to show us what the entry tunnel looked like. In this piece of art there's an bar or long stick shown lying along the side of the tunnel; on inquiring, the DM narrated it as a 14'-long iron bar vaguely similar to rebar.

We-as-PCs (and we-as-players) fixated on this bloody iron bar for session after session - it had to be useful, right, or why would someone leave it there - until we finally realized that in fact it was just an iron bar left behind for no good reason......

 

[Maxperson]

I jokingly told them that they built the dungeon around the chariot. They have decided to keep the chariot now.

Due to Ravenloft weirdness, they exited the dungeon high up on a frozen mountain. I think they'll rebel if it ends up breaking on the way down.

Hell, if it were me, I'd break it myself. Pull off the wheels and sled down!

 

[Swarmkeeper]

and none of those need be what the PC wants as an end result.

A PC fighter comes across a lone orc guarding a pie.
"I intimidate the orc" the player says, but adds some flavor to suit your game in how he will... and then tell you he wants the orc to runaway scared
The DM already knows the orc will most likely not run, but sets a DC to see if he successes in intimidating him... if succeeds the orc punches him, if fail orc laughs at him

The PC declarer intent.
the DM determined that the effect was out of line but other effect would trigger off success/fail
DC set
roll made
outcome resolved...

At out table, I'm giving the player the stakes before they roll. They describe an intimidating action and their goal which, in this case, is to get the orc to run. I, as DM, determine that the outcome will be uncertain and tell the player what happens on a success and what happens on a failure. The success state should be somewhat related to what the player wanted their PC to accomplish. If it is something completely different b/c you, as DM, don't think their goal is possible, then you might as well say that the outcome is certain and declare that the action fails. The orc punching the fighter on a successful ability check for the fighter is... not something I would pull on a player. That is most definitely not a success.

now by my house rules if the PC missed by 2-3pts he would "ha, good try, no" if he missed it by more then that but less then 10 he would laugh a belly laugh. if he rolled more then ten laugh he would laugh hard at him...
if he made it by 5ish I would just have orc punch character in face if he made it by more then five i would have him attack with disadvantage, and I would RP him being freaked out.

as you see my house rule is separate from the main rule

Understood.

Now the DM at any point could just say "no" or "Ok" for auto sucess/fail thats fine... the roll is if the DM doesn't know.

See above - you called for roll even though you, as DM, knew the fighter could not accomplish their goal. This seems like cognitive dissonance to me.

now reverse it. the orc wants to intimidate the PC into running instead

The DM declarer intent.
the PC determined that the effect was out of line but other effect would trigger off success/fail
DC set
roll made
outcome resolved...

What does "the PC determined that the effect was out of line" mean? I'm not picking up on your short hand here.

And, just a side comment here, while were on the topic. Several of us have tried to understand your playstyle. Yet I don't see a similar effort on your end. Do you understand our playstyle at all?

now my house rule part is it doesn't have to be this rigid, the Player (or DM) doesn't need to decide before roll what all the out comes are, they can make them up as they roll before they roll or after they roll.

I'm not into adjudicating by feel when it comes to rolling dice. The players deserve to know what means what before getting into situations that could be bad for their PC. If they still go for it, that's on them. If I don't give the stakes and the PC suffers b/c of how I "read" a roll result in the moment, that potentially leads to "gotcha" situations - inadvertent or otherwise.

 

[Maxperson]

At out table, I'm giving the player the stakes before they roll. They describe an intimidating action and their goal which, in this case, is to get the orc to run. I, as DM, determine that the outcome will be uncertain and tell the player what happens on a success and what happens on a failure. The success state should be somewhat related to what the player wanted their PC to accomplish. If it is something completely different b/c you, as DM, don't think their goal is possible, then you might as well say that the outcome is certain and declare that the action fails. The orc punching the fighter on a successful ability check for the fighter is... not something I would pull on a player. That is most definitely not a success.

I'm not into adjudicating by feel when it comes to rolling dice. The players deserve to know what means what before getting into situations that could be bad for their PC. If they still go for it, that's on them. If I don't give the stakes and the PC suffers b/c of how I "read" a roll result in the moment, that potentially leads to "gotcha" situations - inadvertent or otherwise.

I generally don't do that. If a PC is going to try and intimidate the orc, he's not going to know if it will run or not before he tries. It's not a gotcha situation. It's just one that doesn't work just like you thought it would. Maybe the orc is a grunt who will run, and maybe it's an elite orc assassin who won't run, but might suffer a penalty to hit and damage as he fights with nervous fear.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

How is the skill not engaged? The Rogue is still going through the motions of attempting to Hide, and thus engages (or employs) the skill.

That in this case the skill has no chance of succeeding doesn't mean it isn't engaged.

Snarky answer: It's a 5e thing. You wouldn't understand.

More seriously: Engaging skills is something of past editions. In 5e, you can let skill proficiencies inform how you see your character, but the players don't go around hitting buttons on their character sheet to engage with game world. Players simply describe what their character wants to do and the DM adjudicates. Ideally, if a roll is called for, the PC is engaged in a proposed course of action that they're good at so as to favor them in the case where a DM does call for an ability check. You might think it is a semantics thing but it is really a game flow thing.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I generally don't do that. If a PC is going to try and intimidate the orc, he's not going to know if it will run or not before he tries. It's not a gotcha situation. It's just one that doesn't work just like you thought it would. Maybe the orc is a grunt who will run, and maybe it's an elite orc assassin who won't run, but might suffer a penalty to hit and damage as he fights with nervous fear.

So a successful ability check for a PC in your game honors that something good happens for them. That's the critical part, IMO. The stakes laid out can be left vague (on a success, your efforts will gain you an upper hand here. On a failure... not only is the orc not going to be intimidated, but they are going to be able to XYZ) or even unspoken, as long as the honor success and failure as it relates to the PCs approach and goal.